A recent Louisiana Second Circuit of Appeals decision might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the reelection chances of multiple Bossier City councilors.
Last week, a three-judge panel ruled on an appeal that five city councilors – Republicans David Montgomery, Jeff Free, and Vince Maggio, plus Democrat Bubba Williams and independent Jeff Darby – filed in opposition to a district court ruling that the Council had violated its charter by refusing to pass along to the state for voter approval a duly certified and constitutionally valid petition, to amend the charter with strict term limits. These would be a lifetime three terms and apply retroactively to the mayor’s post and all Council slots, which practically means of the five appellants – all of whom betrayed their sworn oaths of office to engage in this illegal behavior – all but Maggio would be unable to run for another term.
This obstinance prevented the measure from going to voters in November, which then would have applied to this spring elections. Because it didn’t, the four can run for reelection this spring, although Williams has said publicly he would retire. It also cost the item a place on the December ballot and likely on the spring ballot in March since the deadline for proposition consideration by the State Bond Commission was Jan. 2.
However, the secretary of state doesn’t close the ballot for candidate qualification until Jan. 31, which would give (through a subcommittee) the SBC time to forward the measure. Whether it would take up this matter depends upon its pleasure and whether that would give enough time for the Secretary of State to fulfill legal obligations for the Mar. 29 election.
And it also depends upon whether the Council majority follows a lawful court order saying it must forward the amendment. It could appeal to the Supreme Court, but at best, and perhaps hardly at all, that would delay the inevitable, as the Circuit’s decision made clear.
Essentially, it amplified the district court decision of Republican District Judge Parker Self that found no merit to the appeal. Most appellant arguments the unanimous panel found not justiciable through a combination of trying to force the judiciary to solve a legislative question and prematurity. With the one argument the panel didn’t find falling into that category it basically laughed that one off as absurd.
If such a slam dunk, it doesn’t seem logical that the panel took so long to decide, costing the earlier ballot placement. In fact, the three all were Monroe-based judges, presumably escaping the long arms of Bossier political insider influence that might have influenced Bossier judges to be dilatory to protect political allies in city government. It would appear maybe they took their time to discredit so thoroughly the bases of the appeal. Indeed, even as Self had declared the stall that writ of mandamus addressed he issued “disingenuous,” the panel went further by noting in a footnote that the action “may be considered malfeasance” in office.
As such, except in the highly unlikely event that multiple members of the Court found something wrong with the lower courts’ reasoning, any further appeal would be swiftly rejected through the Court turning down a trial over the case. This means that the Council would have to act soon or put itself in contempt of court and punishable.
Some have advocated going further besides asking the judiciary to find the Council in contempt. Leaders of Bossier Term Limits, the organizers behind the successful petition, suggested that members of the public should file complaints with the 26th District Attorney Republican Schuyler Marvin against Montgomery, Free, Maggio, Williams, and Darby for violation of R.S. 14:134, the malfeasance statute. As Marvin and his office has way too many connections with city politicians, he would have to recuse and then Republican Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill’s office would have to take over.
This can be obviated if the Council majority acts fast to reverse itself. It could call a special meeting prior to its scheduled Jan. 28 one to forward the matter, as it did last October when it tried to rush through a competing amendment from a charter commission that majority had constituted for the express purpose of trying to compete with or block the citizens’ amendment, which was weaker in not imposing retroactivity nor applies lifetime, to make the December ballot, but unsuccessfully.
It won’t, because it takes a majority to call one or the chairman can trigger one, the latter of which spurred the October one. The chairman is Williams, who was installed over Republican Councilor Chris Smith for this council year even though Smith had served the previous year as vice chairman and in an extraordinary break from precedence was not elevated to chairman. It’s now clear why the Council minus Smith and Republican Councilor Brian Hammons made that choice: to allow its faction to advance its interests and block those of the minority of Smith and Hammons through the ability to call special meetings.
Still, a meeting at the next regularly scheduled time provides an opportunity to pass the necessary enabling resolution three days prior to 1/31. But, don’t count on it, for in with a penny, in with a pound: after having dragged things out so long and potentially suffering judicial penalties as a result, it can’t make things worse by delaying more.
That, however, is the legal side. The consequences could be much more severe politically with elections around the corner. With this development in place, and even without throwing in contempt of court, the negative ads against the recalcitrant Oathbreakers just write themselves, such as in the case of Darby: “The actions of Jeff Darby were called ‘disingenuous’ by Bossier District Court. The Second Circuit said his actions ‘may be considered malfeasance.’ After he put his name on a statue that cost taxpayers over $300,000. And yet he’s asking voters to return a person of his low character to office having ignored and belittled his constituents for 32 years,” and so on.
Whether the transparently self-serving legal battle the Oathbreakers will lose translates into electoral defeats remain to be seen, but it does appear to be encouraging much greater competition for Council seats where four years ago Free, Williams, and Darby at none at all but where of the three other challenged incumbents only Montgomery survived. If one or more of the gang loses his race, perhaps this judicial tussle might have been the last straw.
No comments:
Post a Comment